The Religion Discussion

[mamoo_pagal]

True the fundamentalist approach involves the thinking that healing is unique to their path. My bad.....

The christian community think it is only exclusive to them .

What this begins to prove is that the power is within a universal force that is in every living thing and works regardless of our religious beliefs.

BINGO!!!

"Waits for megadoc's demon thoery"

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ well all religious fundamentalists will claim that what may seem like miracles performed by another faith are actually the work of the devil - -that too is the myopic nature of religion

[brainchild]

What this may prove is that the power is within a universal force that is in every living thing and works regardless of our religious beliefs.

Been trying to say this for the longest while to that dude...won't make a difference!

[sMASH]

in my observation of other cultures, and when u read some of those motivational stuff, u find parallels with the religious stuff. that is another reason i have a great tolerance of the atheists, they are not clueless.

' the secret' dvd, was very enlightening. like the same thing but a different interpretation.

applied to islam, every time u meet someone u greet them with a salutation of peace and in a manner which is uplifting. the response to the greeting should be greater than what was issued by the first person.

that got me more interested in islam. not just a propagation of positive vibes, but a specific positive vibes.

[mamoo_pagal]

yes sMASH precisely, alot of cultures practice the same, they have this understanding:
for example: the hindus greet each other with Namaste
Namaste is one of a small list of Sanskrit words commonly recognized by Non-Sanskrit origin language speakers.

Namaskār (Devnagari/Sanskrit: नमस्कार) literally means "I bow to [your] form".

"I honor the Spirit in you which is also in me."
"I honor the place in you in which the entire Universe dwells, I honor the place in you which is of Love, of Integrity, of Wisdom and of Peace. When you are in that place in you, and I am in that place in me, we are One."
"That which is of God in me greets that which is of God in you."
"The Divinity within me perceives and adores the Divinity within you."

[bluefete]

sMASH you have your beliefs and megadoc1 has his - I am not discounting either.
obviously the two beliefs do not mesh which is why we had the Crusades and War in the Middle East etc etc

I think we can all accept that different religions have different accounts of God.


He claims all dinosaurs existed at the same time as man yet he brings no proof.


megadoc1 is quick to state that others are dead wrong
So where is the proof?

So far we have gotten NO proof, no empirical evidence to support his claims. All we have gotten is an invitation to his group meetings. If megadoc1 posted the claims here then I think he can post the proof here too!

Duane: Let me help out my pardner here! Obviously, scientists will do their best to discredit this theory because it does not fit in with THEIR perception of what was!

Creationists say this petroglyph in Utah is proof dinosaurs and humans co-existed. But is it just a mud stain?

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:13 PM on 27th March 2011


It certainly looks like a dinosaur. Then again, it also looks like a mud stain.

Either way, this apparent ancient cave drawing high on a rock formation in Utah has ignited a firestorm.

Creationists are claiming the famous dinosaur petroglyph at the Kachina Bridge formation in Natural Bridges Natural Monument in south-eastern Utah is proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

The image looks very much like a hand-drawn, plant-eating dinosaur - a diplodocus, perhaps.

But scientists say that is impossible.

Now a new research paper is stirring up the controversy with the claim that the petroglyph is in fact a drawing of a snake. The 'legs' of the dinosaur are nothing more than mud stains, according to the paper published in Palaeontologia Electronica.

The paper was co-authored by biology professor Phil Senter, at Fayetteville State University.

Now you see it... A lighter patch of this rock at the Kachina Bridge formation in Utah appears to form the image of a dinosaur - but is it?


Above left: What appears to be the head and neck of the dinosaur. Above right: What is apparently the body and legs of the dinosaur - but a new paper argues that the image is merely a petroglyph of a snake, with mud stains that confuse the eye into thinking it is seeing legs

He hiked the region with his fianceé in 2009 - and when he came upon the famous image, he said, 'I couldn't believe it.

'It looked just like a sauropod,' he told Discovery News.

Curious, he contacted archaeologist Sally Cole, considered an expert in petrogylphs, which are common throughout parts of Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

The images are usually found on cave walls or rock faces, drawn several thousand years ago by Native Americans.

Usually they depict deer and other animals. The one at Kachina Bridge was different - as are a few others scattered around the area.

Cole examined the drawing and came to the conclusion that it was actually a composite of two separate drawings.

One is a snake or a serpent. The 'legs' of the 'dinosaur', she said, were actually just stains from minerals or mud.

The result, the paper claimed, was a kind of 'paraeidolia, the psychological phenomenon of perceiving significance in vague or random stimuli, e.g., seeing animals in clouds or the face of a religious figure in a food item.'

Officials at the Creationist Museum, one of several creationist organisations featuring the petroglyph, quickly criticised the report and Cole.

David Menton, a biologist at the museum, told Discovery News that Cole's findings had to be disregarded as she examined the petroglyph from a distance with binoculars - not close up.

He said he was prepared to accept it was a dinosaur - or even some other creature. But, he was quoted as saying, 'I'm not prepared to accept... that the artist climbed up there but the authors didn't climb up.'

Had Native Americans seen one of these? A sauropod, which is similar in shape to the dinosaur-like image in Utah

Cole's paper claimed the area was too rugged for a ladder.

Menton said the image looked like a sauropod and rejected the theory that it has no meaning at all. He said he wished Senter and Cole had provided other possibilities for what the drawing might be.

Several other drawings at Kachina Bridge appear to be of dinosaurs also, including one apparently of a triceratops and another of a monoclonius.

But Senter and Cole claimed in their paper that those images, also, are either composites or do not resemble any four-legged animal they can identify.

The Kachina Bridge formation in south-eastern Utah, where there are many petroglyphs

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1HqK16UgH

[Bizzare]

I don't see it

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete you gone back using a UK tabloid to prove your point?
that article shows absolutely nothing and the report is totally subjective

[bluefete]

bluefete you gone back using a UK tabloid to prove your point?
that article shows absolutely nothing and the report is totally subjective

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

bluefete you gone back using a UK tabloid to prove your point?
that article shows absolutely nothing and the report is totally subjective

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!

ok, but we are talking about facts here not perception and what makes you feel warm and fuzzy inside.

As I keep telling megadoc1: "believing something does not make it true"

[Bizzare]

As I keep telling megadoc1: "believing something does not make it true"

You just re-wrote this whole thread in one sentence. 228 pages cuz each party thinks what they believe in is true. Say no more. Learn, Lock this thread and move on. Its an eye sore in "Ole Talk and News" now
[/THREAD]

[sMASH]

sMASH you have your beliefs and megadoc1 has his - I am not discounting either.
obviously the two beliefs do not mesh which is why we had the Crusades and War in the Middle East etc etc

I think we can all accept that different religions have different accounts of God.


He claims all dinosaurs existed at the same time as man yet he brings no proof.


megadoc1 is quick to state that others are dead wrong
So where is the proof?

So far we have gotten NO proof, no empirical evidence to support his claims. All we have gotten is an invitation to his group meetings. If megadoc1 posted the claims here then I think he can post the proof here too!

Duane: Let me help out my pardner here! Obviously, scientists will do their best to discredit this theory because it does not fit in with THEIR perception of what was!

Creationists say this petroglyph in Utah is proof dinosaurs and humans co-existed. But is it just a mud stain?

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:13 PM on 27th March 2011


It certainly looks like a dinosaur. Then again, it also looks like a mud stain.

Either way, this apparent ancient cave drawing high on a rock formation in Utah has ignited a firestorm.

Creationists are claiming the famous dinosaur petroglyph at the Kachina Bridge formation in Natural Bridges Natural Monument in south-eastern Utah is proof that dinosaurs and humans co-existed.

The image looks very much like a hand-drawn, plant-eating dinosaur - a diplodocus, perhaps.

But scientists say that is impossible.

Now a new research paper is stirring up the controversy with the claim that the petroglyph is in fact a drawing of a snake. The 'legs' of the dinosaur are nothing more than mud stains, according to the paper published in Palaeontologia Electronica.

The paper was co-authored by biology professor Phil Senter, at Fayetteville State University.

Now you see it... A lighter patch of this rock at the Kachina Bridge formation in Utah appears to form the image of a dinosaur - but is it?


Above left: What appears to be the head and neck of the dinosaur. Above right: What is apparently the body and legs of the dinosaur - but a new paper argues that the image is merely a petroglyph of a snake, with mud stains that confuse the eye into thinking it is seeing legs

He hiked the region with his fianceé in 2009 - and when he came upon the famous image, he said, 'I couldn't believe it.

'It looked just like a sauropod,' he told Discovery News.

Curious, he contacted archaeologist Sally Cole, considered an expert in petrogylphs, which are common throughout parts of Colorado, Utah and New Mexico.

The images are usually found on cave walls or rock faces, drawn several thousand years ago by Native Americans.

Usually they depict deer and other animals. The one at Kachina Bridge was different - as are a few others scattered around the area.

Cole examined the drawing and came to the conclusion that it was actually a composite of two separate drawings.

One is a snake or a serpent. The 'legs' of the 'dinosaur', she said, were actually just stains from minerals or mud.

The result, the paper claimed, was a kind of 'paraeidolia, the psychological phenomenon of perceiving significance in vague or random stimuli, e.g., seeing animals in clouds or the face of a religious figure in a food item.'

Officials at the Creationist Museum, one of several creationist organisations featuring the petroglyph, quickly criticised the report and Cole.

David Menton, a biologist at the museum, told Discovery News that Cole's findings had to be disregarded as she examined the petroglyph from a distance with binoculars - not close up.

He said he was prepared to accept it was a dinosaur - or even some other creature. But, he was quoted as saying, 'I'm not prepared to accept... that the artist climbed up there but the authors didn't climb up.'

Had Native Americans seen one of these? A sauropod, which is similar in shape to the dinosaur-like image in Utah

Cole's paper claimed the area was too rugged for a ladder.

Menton said the image looked like a sauropod and rejected the theory that it has no meaning at all. He said he wished Senter and Cole had provided other possibilities for what the drawing might be.

Several other drawings at Kachina Bridge appear to be of dinosaurs also, including one apparently of a triceratops and another of a monoclonius.

But Senter and Cole claimed in their paper that those images, also, are either composites or do not resemble any four-legged animal they can identify.

The Kachina Bridge formation in south-eastern Utah, where there are many petroglyphs

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1HqK16UgH

using ur own brand of logic, paleontologists and anthropologists have discovered numerous humanoid skeletons which show some sort of progression where one my be changed from descended from another. there are some changes from one to another which are greater than others and suggest that the skeleton of the in between form has not been found. even as they asses dna samples in mitochondria, they, for some part, refer to this evolution as theory, (but the fact that lineage can the retraced through mitochondria dna is nail-in-coffin ting).
and u call that false

now, u show us one image of a rock with what seems to be a dinosaur but seemed more to me like the scrapings of someone sharpening a tool and tout that as complete and utter proof as dinosaur coexisting with humans.
get real please.



and the kicker,, i saw the hump, neck and head of a dinosaur in the image, but after a while then i noticed the one u showed. so, in the image are two perceptions of dinosaur, both of them totally abstract to the point of imagination.


... this is urs...



...and this is mines...




jomp for joy, there are two dinosaurs,,, call hagee and robertson,,,, evidence like wow, yo!!

[megadoc1]

As I keep telling megadoc1: "believing something does not make it true"

what I would like to know, is why do you feel the need to keep telling me that?
I think you are mistaken ....I remembered saying that "faith in something false is as good as no faith at all"
and....... "that your faith is as good as what you put it in"
these were my words to you when you thought that someone being sincere in their faith gives it value, I tried to point out that the value is what you put your faith in not
how strong your faith is in whatever you put it ...........

so why fool others into thinking that you need to tell me something that I have always considered a foolish position to hold?

please!!!!! you must be mistaken or maybe you are deceiving only, yourself!!!!!!
If you really thought that you must tell me this , then as I have said before
lacking in understanding is the only thing we have in common.....

[bluefete]

The more they try to disprove God, the more they prove His existence!!!

One billion-year-old life form fossils found on edge of Scottish loch

By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 7:08 PM on 13th April 2011


* Fossils mark a key moment in evolution when bacteria started to become more complex cells capable of photosynthesis and sexual reproduction*

Fossils of some of the first life forms to make the pivotal jump from the oceans to land have been found on the edge of a remote Scottish loch.

Rocks around Loch Torridon, on Scotland's west coast, contain the preserved remains of organisms that once lived at the bottom of lakes a billion years ago.

They mark a key moment in evolution when simple bacteria started to become more complex collections of cells capable of photosynthesis and sexual reproduction.

One of the primitive life fossils found at Loch Torridon on Scotland's west coast. They contain the preserved remains of organisms that once lived at the bottom of lakes a billion years ago

Professor Martin Brasier, from Oxford University's Department of Earth Sciences, said: 'These new fossils show that the move toward complex algal cells living in lakes on land had started over a billion years ago, much earlier than had been thought.'

His research is reported in the journal Nature.

Unlike their bacterial ancestors, the cells had specialised structures including a nucleus, as well as machinery vital for photosynthesis.

They also reproduced sexually, which helped to speed up evolution.

Experts believe the organisms ultimately gave rise to green algae and land plants.

Co-author Dr Charles Wellman, from the University of Sheffield, said: 'It is generally considered that life originated in the ocean and that the important developments in the early evolution of life took place in the marine environment.

Loch Torridon: The fossils are of some of the first life forms to make the pivotal jump from the oceans to land

During this time the continents are often considered to have been essentially barren of life - or at the most with an insignificant microbial biota dominated by cyanobacteria.

'We have discovered evidence for complex life on land from one-billion-year-old deposits from Scotland.

'This suggests that life on land at this time was more abundant and complex than anticipated.

'It also opens the intriguing possibility that some of the major events in the early history of life may have taken place on land and not entirely within the marine realm.'

Around 500million years after the appearance of the life forms, the land surface began to be colonised by simple vegetation such as lichens, mosses and liverworts, said the scientists.

At about the same time the first simple animal organisms began to migrate out of the sea.

They were followed by the emergence of fish, reptiles, mammals, ferns, conifers and flowering plants. (So, ferns, conifers and flowering plants walked out from the sea too? Oh, I know. The sea receded and allowed these plants to be exposed to the air and thus grow from there.)

Professor Brasier added: 'None of this would have been possible without advances long ago made by these little microbes, now entombed within phosphate from the Torridon lakes.

'It was arguably these organisms that helped to turn our landscape from a harsh and rocky desert into a green and pleasant place.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/ ... z1JbXXdfY9

[anoojra]

Scientists GUESSING the age of something is like the politicians estimating the budget.....always soo and sooo BILLION!

It's like they just make up ah number in their head :-/

[bluefete]

HMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I wonder if this could happen here!!!

'I'm proud of my cross - but Christianity is becoming a dirty word in this country', says the electrician threatened with the sack for displaying crucifix

By Jane Fryer
Last updated at 12:42 AM on 23rd April 2011


Over the past week, Colin Atkinson has been described as an ‘extremist’, an ‘outrageous radical’ and a ‘political agitator’.

But as the 64-year-old grandfather potters happily round his very neat kitchen in his grey woolly socks — making sugary tea, laying out malted biscuits, checking his wife Geraldine is comfortable in her beige leather recliner chair and chatting on (and on) — he looks simply kindly. And oddly familiar.

‘Until this all happened, most people said I look like Wallace — from Wallace & Gromit,’ he says, waving his enormous hands about in a Wallace-like fashion and beaming.

Not ashamed: Colin Atkinson has won his battle to display a cross in his company van. His employer, Wakefield and District Housing, thought 'it might offend people or suggest the organisation is Christian'

‘Well, that’s fine by me. Because, like Wallace, there’s nowt special about me. I’m just an ordinary bloke.’

An ordinary bloke who became so angry and frustrated at Britain’s obsession with multiculturalism, diversity and political correctness that he felt he had no option but to stand up for his rights and beliefs.

‘I didn’t want any of this fuss. Who would?’ he says, brandishing a flowery tea cup. ‘The past few months have been unbelievable — a nightmare. The worry’s made Geraldine poorly. I’ve not slept more than three hours a night and I collapsed with stress at my doctor’s.

‘And there have been plenty of tears — though never in front of Geraldine,’ he adds, hastily. ‘But sometimes you’ve no choice. You have to take a stand.’

Colin is a committed Christian. He is also the electrician from Wakefield who has been in the news all week for refusing to remove a small palm cross (the sort given out in church on Palm Sunday) from his company transit van.

He had been banned from displaying the cross — which, for the past 15 years, he had Blu-Tacked to his dashboard and removed whenever he wasn’t using the van — because his employer, Wakefield and District Housing (WDH), thought ‘it might offend people or suggest the organisation is Christian’.

On refusing their request not to display it, Colin was banished to a different work depot pending a full disciplinary hearing for ‘gross misconduct’ and threatened with losing his £26,000-a-year job.

Faith: Mr Atkinson was offered a compromise by employers Wakefield District Housing after religious leaders queued up to condemn them

This week, former Archbishop of Canterbury Lord Carey called the ban ‘outrageous’ and praised Colin for standing up for his faith, while former Home Office minister Ann Widdecombe weighed in and said it proved there was ‘one rule for Christians and another rule for followers of any other religion’.

And then, finally, on Wednesday — after 15 months of rows, meetings and horrible upset for Colin and Geraldine — WDH caved in and said Colin’s cross could stay.

Which, of course, is wonderful news for common sense and a poke in the eye for the czars of political correctness. But it still surely begs the question of how on earth things got this far? ‘The whole thing was madness,’ says Colin, rolling his eyes. ‘No one has ever complained about the cross. And why would they?

‘To other people, it’s just a cross stuck down with a bit of Blu-Tack. How could they be offended?

Colin is an unlikely crusader. An ex-miner, ex-soldier and one-time baker, he is softly spoken with huge ears, those enormous hands and very blue eyes. He and Geraldine live in a neat terraced house in a Wakefield suburb. It’s full of flowers, meticulously dusted ornaments, the odd crucifix, dozens of family photographs and cuddly Wallaces and Gromits perched on every surface.
My faith is everything to me, but somehow they seem to want to treat it as a shameful secret

The couple worship at the local Pentecostal Destiny Church twice a week and, although Geraldine is often confined to a wheelchair due to a muscle-wasting illness, the pair regularly visit the elderly, take part in a teen outreach programme and, when Geraldine’s health is up to it, roar round the country on their 1986 Honda Goldwing motorbike.

‘It’s brilliant. We’re having a sidecar fitted so our cuddly Wallace and Gromit can peek out,’ says Colin. He is also the sort of man who likes things to be ‘fair, honest and straightforward’. Which is why he knew he had to stand up to WDH.

For while publicly-funded WDH — the fifth biggest housing organisation in England — got themselves into a lather about Colin’s crucifix, emblems of other religions seemed fine.

For example, there would have been no problem if an employee wanted to wear a turban, a veil or burka to work. Indeed, according to the company’s fantastically zealous equality and diversity manager Jayne O’Connell, WDH would have been delighted to provide material in the official corporate colours for a different style of uniform — such as a burka — if required.

And the company clearly has no problem with Marxism: Denis Doody, WDH’s environmental manager, has a huge poster of Argentine revolutionary Che Guevara stuck to his office wall.

In many ways, in fact, WDH prides itself on its tolerance and equality. It sponsors ‘diversity days’ for the Leeds Gypsy and Traveller Group, provides stalls at gay pride events, has welcomed the imam from the Wakefield Central Mosque to address staff and has even hosted a gender-reassignment event called A World That Includes Transpeople.

But no crosses, please.

Which for Colin — a committed Christian for the past 20 years — was too much: ‘This is important. Christians across the country are being persecuted because of their faith. Christianity is becoming a dirty word in this country.’

Colin isn’t the first Christian to fall foul of the equality zealots. There was the British Airways worker who was told she couldn’t wear a crucifix at work, even though the hijab was acceptable for colleagues who wished to proclaim their Islamic faith.

Colin adds more examples: ‘There was the bed and breakfast couple, charged with discrimination, for turning away a gay couple because they weren’t married.

‘And Eunice and Owen Johns, from Derby, who were prevented from fostering because they disapproved of homosexuality.

‘They all stood up for themselves — they spoke out. And now it’s our turn. We’re not homophobic, we’re not against other religions and we’re happy to let others live and let live. But why should we sit back and be picked on?

‘I didn’t want to impose my faith on anyone. But I also didn’t want to have to hide my cross away like it’s a shameful secret.

Unacceptable: Mr Atkinson faced the sack after he refused to take the small palm cross off the dashboard of his company vehicle

I wanted it to be respected. Was that too much to ask?’

It all started in January last year when, out of the blue, Colin’s manager told him he had to remove the cross from his van.

‘I was shocked. I thought, “What’s going on here?” After all, I’d been working for the company for 14 years and the cross had been in my van since day one and there was never a problem.’

So he dug his heels in and refused to remove it unless someone could explain why. Had there been a change in company policy that no one had told him about? Had someone complained?

‘They wouldn’t tell me, so I wouldn’t remove it,’ he says.

Four managerial requests ensued, followed by dozens of meetings with trade union representatives — but there wasn’t a scrap of evidence that anyone had ever been remotely offended by Colin’s cross.

‘No one ever complained about it to me. Not my Sikh and Muslim colleagues, not my customers,’ he says.

‘Occasionally when I was out and about, people would ask me it and I’d have a little chat with them — and maybe say a prayer for them if they wanted me to. But that was it.’
No one ever complained about it to me. Not my Sikh and Muslim colleagues, not my customers

Meanwhile, he printed off every bit of company legislation he could find and pored over it at home with Geraldine. But still neither of them could find a company code or rule barring his cross.

‘So I held firm,’ he says simply.

So for months the stand-off continued, punctuated by increasingly aggressive meetings and sleep-deprivation over worries about the future and how he and Geraldine would manage if he were sacked.

Not surprisingly, their health suffered badly. ‘I’m not good with stress and this was terrible,’ says Geraldine. ‘And poor Colin — he’s a changed man. He was so happy-go-lucky — he did brilliant impersonations of Mick Jagger. But this has changed him. He’s lost nearly a stone and he gets very upset. He tries not to show it in front of me, but I know — he goes all wobbly.’

And if he’d been sacked?

‘Things would have been really difficult,’ says Colin. ‘But we’d have managed. Money’s not as important as honesty, integrity and standing up for what you believe in.’

Things finally came to a head when WDH moved the goalposts by issuing an ‘updated’ policy saying that all personal symbols should be removed from vans.

A desperate Colin finally had enough and went public.

Which was a brilliant move. Because, unfortunately for WDH, it had gravely misjudged public opinion, not only did Colin earn the support of Christian, Muslim, Hindu and Sikh leaders, it turned out he was a natural in front of the cameras.

He wowed the audience on The Alan Titchmarsh Show (who voted 100 per cent in his favour in a live poll) and went down a storm on Daybreak (‘ooh, that was fabulous — such fun’) where he proudly said: ‘I don’t want to be a television personality, but I’ll do my best in front of the camera because I do want to be able to put my cross back in my van’.

Meanwhile, back home in Wakefield, his phone’s been ringing off the hook (‘I’ve had hundreds of messages of support’), news crews are still circling outside and neighbours are popping by every five minutes to offer their congratulations, eat malted biscuits and discuss the state of Britain today — one of Colin’s pet subjects.

‘This country was built on Christian values, but it’s losing its identity because everyone is so afraid of offending the minorities,’ he says. ‘I was always very proud to be British. But am I now? That’s a tough question.

‘We’ve had our foundations chiselled away and things have changed dramatically.’ He pauses, scratches his head and has a good think. ‘I am still proud. But only just.’ And now it’s all over — what of the future? Next week he and his precious cross will be back at work, but retirement is only a year away.

‘We’d like to spend a lot more time helping disabled people,’ says Geraldine. ‘There’s no end of things you can do to help.’

‘And more time out on our motorbike,’ adds Colin. ‘It’s a monster — it goes like a rocket ship!’

Gosh. How fast?

‘Fast enough that our guardian angel probably blows off. If we answer truthfully, that will blow our righteousness right out of the window — but put it this way, well into three figures!’

Goodness. And with that, we say our farewells. While Colin and Geraldine are old-fashioned and earnest, with views not everyone will share, there is also something very impressive about them — integrity, flair (think of that enormous bike), an inner steeliness and a determination not to roll over and do nothing as their precious values are trampled into the ground.

As a Colin puts it himself: ‘I did not ask for this fight, but I have been forced to join it. I have not bashed anybody with my bible.

‘I simply want to be able to demonstrate my faith. Now I just want this all over so I can get back to work and provide for my wife and my family.’

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z1KNC1n400

[Scoobert Bauce]

I ent gonna lie, i woulda LOVE 2 be in this thread.
as a proud athiest, i honestly believe dat there is no god HOWEVER, the teachings of most religions like encouraging peace, respect for other people etc. was/is beneficial to how society is built (laws, for example) but then again in the Catholic church a former Nazi soldier is second in command to
''god'' and Hitler was catholic... and so was the spanish and english who ran the slave trade... and the ku klux klan... and knights in the 16th century killed anyone who wasnt catholic... and whole civilizations were wiped out in the name of 'a loving god'... so yeah, i dont like religion that much

[SaiBorg]

Every breath I take.

[bluefete]

I ent gonna lie, i woulda LOVE 2 be in this thread.
as a proud athiest, i honestly believe dat there is no god (The more intelligent we become, the more dotish we get) HOWEVER, the teachings of most religions like encouraging peace, respect for other people etc. was/is beneficial to how society is built (laws, for example) but then again in the Catholic church a former Nazi soldier is second in command to
''god'' and Hitler was catholic... and so was the spanish and english who ran the slave trade... and the ku klux klan... and knights in the 16th century killed anyone who wasnt catholic... and whole civilizations were wiped out in the name of 'a loving god'... so yeah, i dont like religion that much. Isn't that the history of all religions?

ScooB: Are you then saying that Atheism is your religion?

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

ScooB: Are you then saying that Atheism is your religion?

"if atheism is a religion then not playing football is a sport"

[megadoc1]

that's poor.... the man said "honestly I believe that there is no God"
there you go again mixing matters of faith with other stuff as/for examples
but lets play....

not liking football ,does not prevent it from being a sport that most people loves

on a serious note:in the context of Scoobert Bauce post one can come to the conclusion that he is what you may call an evangelical atheist
giving bluefete the right to ask such a question....

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

that's poor....

what is poor about it? Atheism is not a religion. There is no faith in doctrine, no practice, no belief in anything supernatural. Every atheist has his own reason for not believing in God and they have their own way of living, their own values based on their experiences - the only common factor among atheists is that they don't believe in God - how does that make it a religion?

the man said "honestly I believe that there is no God"
there you go again mixing matters of faith with other stuff as/for examples

the word belief does not mean there is a religion attached. I believe the sky is blue, is that a religion? I do not believe that the world will end in 2012, is that a religion?

if someone says they do not believe in God then yes it makes them an atheist, however it does not make atheism a religion

but lets play....

let's not

not liking football ,does not prevent it from being a sport that most people loves

ok. so?

I said the act of not liking football is not a sport, it is just a personal feeling.
Believing there is no God is not a religion, it is just a belief

on a serious note:in the context of Scoobert Bauce post one can come to the conclusion that he is what you may call an evangelical atheist
giving bluefete the right to ask such a question....

yes one can like you and one like bluefete can come to that conclusion, but that does not mean everyone would.

[sensiman]

that's poor....

what is poor about it? Atheism is not a religion. There is no faith in doctrine, no practice, no belief in anything supernatural. Every atheist has his own reason for not believing in God and they have their own way of living, their own values based on their experiences - the only common factor among atheists is that they don't believe in God - how does that make it a religion?

the man said "honestly I believe that there is no God"
there you go again mixing matters of faith with other stuff as/for examples

the word belief does not mean there is a religion attached. I believe the sky is blue, is that a religion? I do not believe that the world will end in 2012, is that a religion?

if someone says they do not believe in God then yes it makes them an atheist, however it does not make atheism a religion

but lets play....

let's not

not liking football ,does not prevent it from being a sport that most people loves

ok. so?

I said the act of not liking football is not a sport, it is just a personal feeling.
Believing there is no God is not a religion, it is just a belief

on a serious note:in the context of Scoobert Bauce post one can come to the conclusion that he is what you may call an evangelical atheist
giving bluefete the right to ask such a question....

yes one can like you and one like bluefete can come to that conclusion, but that does not mean everyone would.

"Duane 3NE 2NR"

Firstly I have been reading this thread for a while and it's amusement factor is long gone. why do you keep wasting your time?

Man can only believe in things that his capacity of understanding allows (that phrase can be easily misinterpreted). Some people need blind faith in order to function and motivate them through life. Let them be.

[megadoc1]

that's poor....

what is poor about it? Atheism is not a religion. There is no faith in doctrine, no practice, no belief in anything supernatural. Every atheist has his own reason for not believing in God and they have their own way of living, their own values based on their experiences - the only common factor among atheists is that they don't believe in God - how does that make it a religion?
if he has faith that there is no God thats all good but
when one feel the need to evangelize his belief in no God and thinks every one should be like him...thats just us humans, we are all religious in nature

the man said "honestly I believe that there is no God"
there you go again mixing matters of faith with other stuff as/for examples

the word belief does not mean there is a religion attached. I believe the sky is blue, is that a religion? I do not believe that the world will end in 2012, is that a religion?
no but if I come along saying the sky is green( we know its blue btw so that part of your example failed ) and expect every one to believe what i believe
and then go on to making stereotypical statements about the ones who believe otherwise especially in a ched based on faith/religion that says alot don't you think?

(some of us believe the sky is blue, some believe its green and some believe its red,
now comes along one who believes there is no sky but all of us have a belief)



if someone says they do not believe in God then yes it makes them an atheist, however it does not make atheism a religion
then lets examine what should suffice as religion

religion
a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, especially when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.
2.
a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion ; the Buddhist religion .
3.
the body of persons adhering to a particular set of beliefs and practices: a world council of religions.
4.
the life or state of a monk, nun, etc.: to enter religion .
5.
the practice of religious beliefs; ritual observance of faith.
6.
something one believes in and follows devotedly; a point or matter of ethics or conscience: to make a religion of fighting prejudice.
7.
religions, Archaic . religious rites.
8.
Archaic . strict faithfulness; devotion: a religion to one's vow.
—Idiom
9.
get religion , Informal .
a.
to acquire a deep conviction of the validity of religious beliefs and practices.
b.
to resolve to mend one's errant ways: The company got religion and stopped making dangerous products

hmm m....... I always avoided that label (religion) but who really could?

but lets play....

let's not

not liking football ,does not prevent it from being a sport that most people loves

ok. so?

I said the act of not liking football is not a sport, it is just a personal feeling.
Believing there is no God is not a religion, it is just a belief
great!! you are getting there, belief in God and belief in no God is still a belief you just cant accept the term religion in there for the negative thats all....
but then you went further to compare a belief with a like or rather a belief with an unlike to make a point...lol

on a serious note:in the context of Scoobert Bauce post one can come to the conclusion that he is what you may call an evangelical atheist
giving bluefete the right to ask such a question....

yes one can like you and one like bluefete can come to that conclusion, but that does not mean everyone would.
I guess so,if we keep this up, it seems like most in here can be called "narrow minded" after all

[Duane 3NE 2NR]

^ LOL @ I am getting there

Atheism is NOT a religion.

no two atheists believe the same thing other than "there is no God".

I am not an atheist BTW.

[De Dragon]

I begin to see why religion is the cause of such strife in our world.

[megadoc1]

^ LOL @ I am getting there

Atheism is NOT a religion.

no two atheists believe the same thing other than "there is no God".
ironically, dr dawkins speaks at atheism conventions


I am not an atheist BTW.

Atheism: "I can't believe its not religion "
that's the tag line it should carry especially when most who holds that position exhibit the same behavior as those who believe in a deity

[bluefete]

Duane: It takes faith to be an atheist!!!!!

One believes that there is no God. How is that different from one who believes that there is?

Faith = Belief = Religion

[megadoc1]

actually it takes a whole lot more faith to believe there's is no God than to believe there is
a God
messiah for them =Darwin
Richard Hawkins = Benny hinn

[bluefete]

^^^^ True that Mega.

I prefer to believe that there is a God than to die and find out that there is not!!!

The consequences for the reverse are too horrible to bear.